The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Instructions for the test influence the outcome. Sounds like some form of science.

gozar_the_destroyer:HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Instructions for the test influence the outcome. Sounds like some form of science.

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

If you noticed, a big thing was that the women looked more like the second picture because the "other person" was giving a better description that wasn't filled with all the things the women hated about themselves like "my chin is blah" or "my eyes are all crap".

It isn't about science so much as showing, people don't focus on the bad. They see you and go "hey, she looks like X, X & X" and the X usually is not "God that biatches eyes were huge and her nose had a kink."

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

And yet the second pictures were far more accurate than the ones people gave about themselves.

I like the part where women felt they were not beautiful because they described themselves as "fat" or "Wrinkled" or "big" then dove turned around and drew them slim, and younger looking and wrinkle free....Hmmmmm, that's some fine sticking to the traditional norms of what "beauty" is in western culture. I guess heavy people or older people can't be beautiful on the inside because it's not properly reflected on the outside.

HotWingAgenda:The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

karmachameleon:HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

The point they thought they were making is that women are overly critical of themselves. The point they actually made is that a person described in vague terms sounds more attractive than someone described in technical detail. Professional photographers learned to put vaseline on the lens for fat, ugly or wrinkly people a long time ago.

It's because you have been looking at yourself in the mirror every day for your entire life and you know every detail, every mole, every crease, every blackheaded pore, every wisp of hair, and every little thing to describe to a police sketch artist.

Someone else seeing you for the first time wouldn't notice these details and they're just describing generalized first impressions.

HotWingAgenda:karmachameleon: HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

The point they thought they were making is that women are overly critical of themselves. The point they actually made is that a person described in vague terms sounds more attractive than someone described in technical detail. Professional photographers learned to put vaseline on the lens for fat, ugly or wrinkly people a long time ago.

I knew this was an ad and not science too, but it's dressed up to sound scientific, and the first thing I thought while watching the ad was "not blinded". The artist knew which description he was getting, and it's really super easy to make an accurate drawing look pretty or not using shading and emphasis. Also, yeah, most people are way too polite to point out feature faults in a perfect stranger.

E5bie:HotWingAgenda: karmachameleon: HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

The point they thought they were making is that women are overly critical of themselves. The point they actually made is that a person described in vague terms sounds more attractive than someone described in technical detail. Professional photographers learned to put vaseline on the lens for fat, ugly or wrinkly people a long time ago.

I knew this was an ad and not science too, but it's dressed up to sound scientific, and the first thing I thought while watching the ad was "not blinded". The artist knew which description he was getting, and it's really super easy to make an accurate drawing look pretty or not using shading and emphasis. Also, yeah, most people are way too polite to point out feature faults in a perfect stranger.

E5bie:HotWingAgenda: karmachameleon: HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

The point they thought they were making is that women are overly critical of themselves. The point they actually made is that a person described in vague terms sounds more attractive than someone described in technical detail. Professional photographers learned to put vaseline on the lens for fat, ugly or wrinkly people a long time ago.

I knew this was an ad and not science too, but it's dressed up to sound scientific, and the first thing I thought while watching the ad was "not blinded". The artist knew which description he was getting, and it's really super easy to make an accurate drawing look pretty or not using shading and emphasis. Also, yeah, most people are way too polite to point out feature faults in a perfect stranger.

Yes, I, too, believe in science, and therefore never remember a general impression of someone's looks, but instead take an exhaustive inventory of their features in technical detail, with special attention paid to all the flaws and imperfections while chatting with them about general topics. This is also how I make friends.

karmachameleon:Congratulations, you missed the point entirely. Hint: they weren't and didn't intend to perform science.

Exactly. While I'm not unhappy the shenanigans were used to do some good (along with the blatant marketing), they were shenanigans all the same. The sketch artist knew which image was which at all times, and so made the "other person" image deliberately better than the "self images" he sandbagged. He didn't even have to come all that close (and he didn't pretty frequently), just make one less pretty than the other, by screwing with proportions, less-flattering hairstyles, facial cues, etc.

All the imagery tricks you see in "before and after" beauty ads, in fact, and everybody's falling for it 'cause it's "all new, scented with aloe and enriched with 'rejuvinator#6'. Astroturfing at its finest.

Christian Bale:HotWingAgenda: The women each gave the sketch artist detailed technical descriptions of their features. The people they met couldn't remember those details, and therefore described them in more general impressions. In fact, the women were specifically instructed to chat up the people they met, generating a more positive perception than if they hadn't introduced themselves or spoken.

Therefore, no blemishes or wrinkles, and smiles instead of neutral faces. This bullshiat is why sociology is not a science.

Dear Jerk:If your description of yourself includes a big ol' mole on your face and a stranger's description of you doesn't, whose description is likely more accurate?

The point is not that one is more accurate than the other, the point is about who is focusing on what.

We tend to be our own worst critics. Other people do not tend to notice the "flaws" that we sometimes obsess about ourselves. What is a flaw to us is just a normal, unremarkable feature to anyone else.

The point was not to conduct science, and those of you insisting on that aspect are missing the forest for the trees. This, from someone deeply devoted to science. That was not the point of this short film.

While I commend Dove for their campaign, the sketch artist HAD to have known what he was doing in purposefully creating fairly miserable before pictures. Some of those before pictures were near to caricatures.

You mean that people who spend time EVERY day concealing their flaws know exactly what those flaws are? And they were relatively nice and outgoing to the strangers, enhancing the halo effect?

Amazing!

Seriously, though, this kind of BS pisses me off. For the most part, women don't want to look good because society or advertisements tells them they should. They just really want to look better than the next woman. And the primary reason behind this is because they want a better mate.

It shows that they feel like they're covered with flaws and horrible features, whereas other people think they have nice faces. This altered perception is pervasive in society. It's a problem, and the filmmaker wants to show people this issue's consequences so we can start dealing with it and MAYBE fixing it.

Commenting on whether society only values a woman based on her looks is beside the point, since women tend to want to be pretty. They may also want to be the most accomplished phlebotomist in their hospital group, but they want to be pretty and it's a fairly consistent desire. Being valued based on your looks is not a females only thing. Many studies have shown that handsome and tall men who keep their hair have more successful careers and tend to be considered for promotion at a much higher rate than shorter men or those who don't keep their hair. All of humanity is shallow and materialistic- you can either shake your fist at the sky in impotent rage at this fact, or start helping the individuals within society to deal with the implications of this tendency. Many people choose the latter, as it has a relatively high possibility of success and impact. It's simply easier to help individuals than fix all of human society. India hasn't stopped burning brides, and we haven't stopped valuing a tight bottom and fine features. Pick your battle.